HUDDY: If you go on to listen to the tape, there are things that I think are incriminating for her that I do think raise a lot of questions about whether or not she should be in the position that she held in the first place. She refers to, you know, his people, I think, that was [inaudible] — his own kind. If a white public service — as Bill O’Reilly said yesterday — servant said, you know, we sent him to his kind, meaning we sent — we sent a white farmer to a white lawyer — that’s what she said she did, his kind. If it was flipped around — would be raising hell, trust me.

…snip…

[In a July 22 tweet, RedState editor-in-chief and CNN contributor Erick] Erickson: “No, I do not think Andrew Breitbart needs to apologize.”

Hoft: Sherrod is a “[f]ar left anti-white radical.” In a July 22 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft called Sherrod a “[f]ar left anti-white radical … who is linked to terrorist Bill Ayers.” Hoft claimed that Sherrod has ties to Ayers because both he and her husband were once “involved” in the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Hoft provided no evidence that the two actually knew each other.

Hoft: “Obama called radical Shirley Sherrod today to … apologize for firing her for her racist remarks.”

…snip…

Limbaugh: “Andrew Breitbart was exactly right. … If you listen to the whole speech … she’s racist.” On the July 22 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that “Andrew Breitbart was exactly right. This woman did not have an epiphany when she was at the USDA. When she was speaking to the NAACP, she did not have an epiphany. … If you listen to the whole speech, as people have, 43 minutes, she’s racist. The NAACP is racist.”

Limbaugh says he has to cover the story because “even Fox caved on this” by saying “Breitbart is wrong.” […] Even Shep Smith — even poor old Shep Smith went down there and said that everybody’s wrong on this, that Breitbart is wrong, and so forth. There’s only a handful of us that have the guts to put this story straight.”

…snip…

Andy McCarthy: “Ms. Sherrod’s Speech Was Most Certainly Not About Transcending Racism.” In a July 22 National Review Online post, Andy McCarthy wrote: “I don’t understand the sudden pendulum swing in the other direction. Now, in Take Two, we are to understand that Ms. Sherrod was not exhibiting racism. Instead, ‘taken in context,’ we’re told, she is actually a heroic figure who has transcended the racist views that, given the terrible things she saw growing up in the South, were understandable.” McCarthy posted parts of her speech and wrote: “Pardon me, but I think I’ll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she’s still got plenty of racial baggage.

…snip…

WND columnist: Sherrod is a “black woman who has graduated from hard-core to soft bigotry.” In a July 23 WorldNetDaily column titled, “Meet Saint Shirley Sherrod,” columnist Ilana Mercer wrote: “And Sherrod is no [Capt. Alfred] Dreyfus. She was fired by an administration that mistook her for a worse racist than she actually was. The Obama posse overestimated the extent of Sherrod’s animus for whites. She turned out to be merely a mezzanine-level racist.

…snip…

Levin reportedly called Sherrod “somebody who’s stuck in the race-baiting game.” Radio host Mark Levin reportedly said in an interview with Yahoo’s The Upshot: “What the hell do I have to apologize for? I didn’t hire her. I didn’t fire her.”

…snip…

Bozell accused Sherrod of “inserting racism into the debate.” Appearing on ABC Radio Networks’ The Mark Levin Show, Media Research Center president Brent Bozell claimed that “the world is upside-down on this one” and said that after watching the whole speech, “It gets worse, it doesn’t get better,” and that Sherrod is guilty of “inserting racism into the debate.”

Lucky for the right-wing, most of their base is too stupid to tell fallacy from fellatio.
Defunding education was always the Republicans’ best master plan.
America has now produced generations of poorly educated, fear-driven lemmings, who in turn love the patriotic platitudes, guns, Jesus and “hating anyone who ain’t American enuff” espoused by the Palin/Fox News/Teabagger crowd.
If you paraphrased the First Amendment to them, they’d call it a socialist plan that lets the terrorists take over.
They think Obama’s a foreign born Muslim, but if they had to find Kenya on a map or describe the basic tenets of the Muslim religion, they’d get pissed off and probably call you a Muslim socialist lesbian abortionist who hates America.
God, I can’t stand ignorant people.

they got rid of the fairness doctrine under st. ronnie, too. that, along with trashing the educational system set the table for uncle rupie and roger ailes. what’s even worse than ignorant people are the ignorant ones who are convinced they’re not ignorant (a/k/a dittoheads, teabaggers, and graduates of glenn blechhh university).

Once someone has lied to you, you should *never* believe anything they say again, because you can never know if they’re telling the truth. And that’s why all these reich-wing wackos are defending Breitbart, because they themselves are liars. They have to perpetuate the lie, because if they didn’t, they’d have to admit to being liars, and that’s something they will never do.

Just be glad you are not them and do not have to live with them. I would not want their karma, nor to deal with them on a daily basis. In the end, I truly believe that all will get what they deserve, because what goes around, comes around. I daresay they will not like it.

bingo, mad! they’re like law enforcement officials who don’t want to admit when one of their forensic people has been proven to be a liar, because that means they would have to sift through all their past cases, knowing that their evidence might have been tainted.

I’ve always thought that journalists should be licensed and have to pass stringent exams in order to be allowed to practice.
They also need governing boards like attorneys and physicans have that make them accountable and can sanction and/or fine them for publishing Breitbat-style horseshit.
If such a board existed, Fox News would have been shut down the same night it made its debut.
When I was in journalism school back in the stone age, my professors would go berserk if we failed to get at least three corroborating sources for each story.
Once I became a reporter for a large market Hearst newspaper, I was stunned by their relaxed expectations. Reporters could damn near pull quotes out of their derriers and get by with it.
These days, too many MSM journalists are on a par with carnival barkers, snake handlers and used car salespeople, and so are their lazy editors.
It’s almost embarrassing to admit I’m a journalist.

Geez, that makes me feel guily about being a science correspondent. I usually only get two sources–the university press release and the scientific paper itself. If I’m really lucky, I’ll get a second press release from a different institution about the same research.

Then again, it’s science, which means that it’s already been peer reviewed. That’s better than being “focus-grouped!”

plus, you’re not an idiot. how many journalism courses did the idiots on faux news and the wingnuts on radio take (and/or pass)? they’re a bunch of bloviators who think that, if they think it, it must be correct.

This story had a 24 hour news cycle- lie via out of context posted, Sherrod fired, speech in it’s entirely posted, Sherrod was exonerated.
NAACP apologized & posted the full speech
Her USDA Boss apologized very publicly & offered her a job
The president called her & apologized.

Seriously!
The story already went full circle.

For them to try to make this a new story, missed the cycle & just makes them look both bad AND late.

has there ever been an instance where one of the right wingnuts apologized to anyone? yes, the naacp was wrong. so was vilsack and obama. however, they admitted that they jumped the gun and apologized. not-too-breitbart will play the victim, and the vast rightwing idiocy will back him all the way.

I’m looking at that roster and thinking that you didn’t miss many of the usual suspects–maybe Michelle Malkin, but she’s a contributor to Fox, so she’s covered by all the Fox mentions. Oh, and that whiner Michael Savage. You aren’t missing much by ignoring him.

It’s a strange paranoid world with this crowd. How come they left mau-mau off the list? I think back to the first conspiracy heavily pushed around when I was a kid. Flouride in the water. My hometown of Arlington had artesian water way back when with natural flouride content. Still got all my teeth. This will become relevant again now that the Birch society has been rehabed. But just last weekend, I was starkly reminded of another old conspiracy. After enjoying some sliced peaches out of a can, I was perusing the label in a slow moment, looking at the lithographic artwork and then I saw it! There it was, just like the right wing cranks warned us. If you looked real carefully, just below the product name, slightly to the right and below was a small k !!! Now every proper conspiracy type knows that means the product is endorsed by Martin Luther King. The 60s were full of bullshit like this but the hardcore will still preach (or peach) that it’s absolutely true. In the real world just telling someone that it means kosher would satisfy the curiosity. In winger world it was just shift to bitching that now it’s “Jew food”. You just can’t win by logic with this bunch

It was, Nonnie, and it was also around the same time Mr. Clean caught shit for wearing an earring in his right ear. If you look now I think he either has one in his left ear or none at all. This shit with Breitbart and pissy-ass journalism shows why I’m going to sell my BA in Comm-Journ. on E-Bay or just ceremoniously throw it in the goddamn trash or in the fucking Potomac. It’s not worth shit since everything I learned has changed. As said, no Fairness Doctrine, and who gives a shit anymore about sources, footnotes, citations, quotes and credit, communication law and ethics? When I get rich from writing my own series of novels, I’ll buy a news channel of my own and make it fair, ethical, legal and a classic news channel. Till then, my degree can stay where it is on my floor behind a pile of VHS tapes and I won’t miss journalism worth a shit. Hell, I’m too old and gray haired to deal with that crap! And the damn radio stations are just as bad. Cheap pay, automated or filthy-mouthed and/or right-wing pieces of shit that need their asses tossed out a station window onto the interstate below.

a high-school kid wouldn’t dare hand in a term paper without footnotes and adequate sourcing. it’s very sad when the national media requires less than what a high school teacher would expect from a student.

It’s really bad. I’m not talking about Writechic, Neon Vincent or Karen Zipdrive. My apologies for any offense taken. I mean the national media, which could take a lesson from local media. In journalism school some of my profs had worked alongside some of the big guns of the day like Cronkite and Chancellor, only not on-camera. What they taught is definitely not used now. Illness and personal problems kept me from my dream of making a big splash in national journalism, but now I’m glad it did. My collection of experiences up to my age now of 48 make me want to do more personal writing than news. The news nowadays makes me cringe and my stomach hurt! Not the presentation – the dumbshit stuff people are doing to get in the news and be headlines!

OK. I know some of your commenters work in different types of media, and I kind of was making blanket statements. But yeah, the media like Faux News and sadly the big media network 3 and CNN and MSNBC all drive me nuts. How they handled things, especially after 9/11. Bush could’ve said he was going to become king of the world and nobody would’ve asked him a single hard question. And on CNN I like Anderson Cooper who thankfully asks hard questions, but for the ladies at the anchor desk, I’d like to know why they feel the need to, or is someone making them show cleavage? Nobody is wearing a mock-neck or round-neck top. It’s all scoop-neck now. If I wanted to see cleavage with my news I’d go read a news paper to my bathroom mirror when I got dressed! As for Ann Coulter sticking up for Breitbart? I think she just wants him to f**k her. Yuck! Just another conquest.

once again, i don’t think anyone took offense. the “news” networks are really just entertainment networks with an occasional news story thrown in here or there. real journalists are few and far between. instead, there are only spokesmodels. as for ann coulter, she was jealous that little andy not-too-breitbart was getting attention and she wasn’t. she’s an attention whore.